can i tell you something?

About the claim that the ongoing Climate Change, which started as early as the 1600s, is "extreme" here is a fact about a past Climate Change.

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001

Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK


Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com

This not only happened in Egypt, similar events happened in many areas around the world.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The tower that was in primitive form at the time was going to use the earths natural electronic properties to fuel the wireless acceptance of electricity worldwide. Which by todays standards is impossible right. Tesla figured out a way to use the Earth and all of its componants to fuel itself naturally without any external energy sources.


He only ran out of money because he stopped getting funded by J.P. Morgan who didnt really know what to think about this fairly expensive 'mysterious' project in lean econimic times. So i dont really know the point of saying he didnt have the money it was obvious he didnt the necessary funding.

I dont think using the earth as power would disrupt or catastrophically ruin anything. The only thing that would ruin it is people. Once built i would assume it would no longer need maintainence on something that would be in full compliance with earths natural resources (other than natural decay of course). I also dont know the length of which the towers power would have emitted so i can't say how many towers would be needed to bounce the energy back and forth.

Tesla would use the earths own magnetic energy to fuel the world so i dont see how he would create magnetic anomolies as you presume.

Maybe i'm wrong but if theres one thing i know is the name Nikola Tesla is shrowded in mystery and conspiracy of suppression for some reason. Given all he has already contributed to modern society.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse



That has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'funny' story I posted! Though I agree that the level of proof checking that occurred in the IPCC report is unforgiveable

But tell me, what is your stance? That no human activity has any effect on climate whatsoever? That whatever we do is fine because your god said so? Or just that CO2 levels have no effect on global temperature whatsoever and that the so-called 'Greenhouse Effect'* is incorrect (despite it withstanding scientific scrutiny for 150 years)?

You seem good at muddying the waters and confusing people by throwing in straw men, non sequiturs and running off at a complete tangent. But what do you actually believe?

Personally, I beleive that human activity affects climate in a variety of different ways and that coupled with natural changes we live in "interesting times" - and that currently we do not know enough to know what the long term consequences may be. Further, that attempting to cut carbon emissions is currently a futile effort and that we would be better concentrating our efforts on other detrimental human impacts on our environment (and in the meantime working on adaption to currently expected climate changes). I find the is/isn't, is/isn't, is/isn't, argument between fervent (and often ill informed) extremists on both sides of the discussion at best a little amusing, though admit to be being a little worried by the religious core base from which the 'humans are not affecting the climate' argument originates.


* I assume you know that the 'Greenhouse Effect' has nothing to do with why greenhouses are warm

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'funny' story I posted! Though I agree that the level of proof checking that occurred in the IPCC report is unforgiveable

I actually responded to every point you made in your post with my first response to your inquiries... I have to wonder exactly what you are talking about.

BTW, about the claim of that story that "the snow is melting slower because of a lack of cars passing through that area" don't you think that if a lack of cars passing through that area are "the reason for the snow smelting slower" then all major cities should have been the areas with the largest warming in 50 years? The fact is that it isn't true, the areas with the largest temperature increases are remote/far away from sources of city pollution.

Read again my first response and you will see that I discussed EVERYTHING you inquired about.

As for the other posts I made. Don't take it personally but I didn't post those just for you but rather for everyone as more proof corroborating my arguments.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
But tell me, what is your stance? That no human activity has any effect on climate whatsoever? That whatever we do is fine because your god said so? Or just that CO2 levels have no effect on global temperature whatsoever and that the so-called 'Greenhouse Effect'* is incorrect (despite it withstanding scientific scrutiny for 150 years)?

All the evidence that I have read on the subject demonstrates that yes CO2 is a GHG, but it's contribution to temperatures is so minuscule that at the levels it exists, and has existed on Earth it has no real consequence on global temperatures.

Mankind can, and do affect local environments, but not the global climate.

As for your claim that the "greenhouse effect has withstood scientific scrutiny for 150 years", you are in fact wrong. Much has changed since the times of Arrhenius.

We have more facts now than ever before about the Earth's geological record. There have been times in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels were HIGHER than now yet temperatures were a lot lower than now. There have also been times when atmospheric CO2 has been a LOT LOWER than now yet temperatures have been MUCH HIGHER.

It is also a FACT that CO2 changes in level always lag temperature changes. Sometimes the lag can be for 80 years and at other times the lag has occurred is around 1,200 years. The average for CO2 lagging behind temperatures is 800 years. Even during the present Climate Change temperatures had been rising for 200-250 years before CO2 levels bagan to increase.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
You seem good at muddying the waters and confusing people by throwing in straw men, non sequiturs and running off at a complete tangent.

Actually what is "non-sequitur" and a strawman is your above sentence. All you have done is give your OPINION without showing any evidence to back your claims, and then you use the above sentence to TRY to make your argument sound smarter, when in fact it isn't.

You have to learn how to use in context "non-sequitur and "strawman" otherwise just using these words because you think it makes your argument valid does not make it so...

How about you point out what my strawman argument is, and what makes my arguments with evidence "non-sequitur"?...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
But what do you actually believe?

I don't "believe", I know by what the evidence and facts say what I already mentioned above. This is the difference between me and AGW believers like you. You base your opinions on BELIEF and not on evidence and facts.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
* I assume you know that the 'Greenhouse Effect' has nothing to do with why greenhouses are warm

edit on 25-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

First of all a greenhouse is a truly closed system which doesn't allow even wind inside the greenhouse. The Earth is not a closed system, which is another fact that goes against the AGW BELIEF.

BTW, more good news... At least they are good news if you are not an AGW believer.

JSC Human Space Flight Vets Complain About NASA's Climate Change Position
By Keith Cowing on April 11, 2012 1:42 PM

"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change."
...

thegwpf.org...

Go figure huh?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Obviously you havent read this page. Man made Global warming is real just like your ignorance.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases. Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in the Industrial Revolution.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'funny' story I posted! Though I agree that the level of proof checking that occurred in the IPCC report is unforgiveable

I actually responded to every point you made in your post with my first response to your inquiries... I have to wonder exactly what you are talking about.

Well now I'm not sure what you're talking about as I made no comment about glaciers, simply posting a silly story which demonstrates how many people don't understand the connection between CO2 and temperature.

BTW, about the claim of that story that "the snow is melting slower because of a lack of cars passing through that area" don't you think that if a lack of cars passing through that area are "the reason for the snow smelting slower" then all major cities should have been the areas with the largest warming in 50 years? The fact is that it isn't true, the areas with the largest temperature increases are remote/far away from sources of city pollution.

No, see above. The story was silly and wrong and as far as I'm aware, local CO2 levels do not affect regional temperature. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

All the evidence that I have read on the subject demonstrates that yes CO2 is a GHG, but it's contribution to temperatures is so minuscule that at the levels it exists, and has existed on Earth it has no real consequence on global temperatures.

But ALL the evidence suggests that for a doubling of CO2 global temps will rise by ~1c all else being equal. Even prominent AGW sceptics like John Christy accept this.

As for your claim that the "greenhouse effect has withstood scientific scrutiny for 150 years", you are in fact wrong. Much has changed since the times of Arrhenius.

The details have been amedned in the light of new data, but the basic premise has not been falsified, notwithstanding the fact that you are convinced it is totally wrong.

We have more facts now than ever before about the Earth's geological record. There have been times in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels were HIGHER than now yet temperatures were a lot lower than now. There have also been times when atmospheric CO2 has been a LOT LOWER than now yet temperatures have been MUCH HIGHER.

Non Sequitur CO2 is not the only factor in global climate.

It is also a FACT that CO2 changes in level always lag temperature changes.

Some natural increases in CO2 may lag temperature - but at present CO2 levels are rising for different reasons.

All you have done is give your OPINION without showing any evidence to back your claims

I think this thread is good evidence of my claims regarding the problems with discussing climate change on internet forums

I don't "believe", I know by what the evidence and facts say what I already mentioned above.

But you seem very selective in your the evidence, and facts may change You dismiss the wealth of evidence that goes contrary to your belief.

This is the difference between me and AGW believers like you. You base your opinions on BELIEF and not on evidence and facts.

Yes, it's my belief we do not yet know everything. I'm not a god nor am I restrained by reigious dogma

First of all a greenhouse is a truly closed system which doesn't allow even wind inside the greenhouse. The Earth is not a closed system, which is another fact that goes against the AGW BELIEF.

Exactly, the so-called Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with how a greenhouse operates - it's a different process. At least everyone agrees on that I fail to see what this has to do with belief in the scientific theories behind AGW though.

For everyone, here's an analogy to conjour with.

Ignore CO2.

You have a house with 100 rooms. Each room has a window. Each room is connected to each other via a series of corridors and the doors to each room are left open.

The temperature inside the house varies according to the time of year and the weather conditions outside. Natural forcings.

You then draw curtains across the windows of 5 rooms and turn on a small electric heater in 5 other rooms.

The house is still subject to the same 'natural' forcings than make it warmer inside on a sunny summer's day and colder inside on a wet windy winter's day.

But

Will your actions, in drawing the curtains and turning on the heaters, increased the average temperature throughout the house, over times?

Originally posted by r2d246
climate change and polution are like 2 different things. Im in Canada and if there really is climate change then we need tons more. TONS! Because it's so freakin cold up here it's rediculous. Climate change my butt

don't you know anything? Your coldness is GW. GW is the change of climate (either hot or cold). Thus you can never win against environmentalist because their theory is always right

reply to post by minor007

Obviously you havent read this page. Man made Global warming is real just like your ignorance.

Yes, of course, and most of us sceptics do admit it (including Electric Universe as he has made clear on more than one ocassion). But it is a question of the degree, isn’t it? The greenhouse gas that is emitted by human society in the greatest quantity by far is CO2 and that is completely dwarfed by nature’s CO2-emissions according to the IPCC, whose AR4 (2007) gave us 29 gigatonnes per year of anthropogenic CO2 and 771 gigatonnes per year of naturogenic CO2. And then at least 98% of that anthropogenic CO2 is destined for the oceans and will not remain as a permanent addition to the atmospheric greenhouse. So all that humanity is adding to the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse each year is 2% of 29 gigatonnes, which amounts to less than 0.6 gigatonnes. When you consider that the total amount of CO2 in the resident atmospheric greenhouse is about 3,000 gigatonnes and that this accounts for less than 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse anyway, that the rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 as well, it becomes strikingly obvious that man-made global warming from CO2 is a very small quantity indeed. From these figures it can be shown that AGW from CO2 cannot be happening at a rate any faster than 0.001C per year. And for this the world is being turned on its head.

Also, I don’t think a decrease in the relative amount of C13 is proof that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 because natural sources can leave the same signature, warming oceans being one. As far as I can see, it’s physically impossible for human CO2 to significantly alter the C12/C13 ratio because of its very short atmospheric residence time. I touch upon this in my article 'Digging into the core: Short atmospheric CO2 residence time' if you’re interested.

reply to post by Nathan-D


I been reading that report you mentioned from the IPCC and i found this

Emissions of CO2 (Figure 1a) from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times. The remainder of the increase comes from land use changes dominated by deforestation (and associated biomass burning) with contributions from changing agricultural practices. All these increases are caused by human activity. The natural carbon cycle cannot explain the observed atmospheric increase of 3.2 to 4.1 GtC yr–1 in the form of CO2 over the last 25 years. (One GtC equals 1015 grams of carbon, i.e., one billion tonnes.)

heres a good explanation as to why our burning of fossil fuels adds to the atmosphere

Really, and sadly enough....most (if not all) of you are the ones POLLUTING it; especially when you DRIVE to work. The reason why the earth is dirty, is because of supply and demand. People are demanding more....and shortcuts are being taken to fill that demand. Don't blame BIG business.....blame yourselves.

When's the last time you planted a tree? When's the last time you went to the park or beach and picked up garbage? Need i continue?

Go to a mirror and point. That's who's to blame! It's not politicians, TPTB, or the Vatican! It's the CONSUMER! Y.O.U.!!!

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Really, and sadly enough....most (if not all) of you are the ones POLLUTING it; especially when you DRIVE to work. The reason why the earth is dirty, is because of supply and demand. People are demanding more....and shortcuts are being taken to fill that demand. Don't blame BIG business.....blame yourselves.

When's the last time you planted a tree? When's the last time you went to the park or beach and picked up garbage? Need i continue?

Go to a mirror and point. That's who's to blame!

It's not politicians, TPTB, or the Vatican! It's the CONSUMER! Y.O.U.!!!

There is certainly some truth in what you are saying...

But it sounds like you are releasing big business from any of the blame. You seem to be separating big business from any responsibility, as if it is some benign entity that is at the mercy of our actions.

I believe that to be wrong...

Big business has made it their business to have an in depth knowledge and understanding of human wants and needs. They then use these against us... physically and mentally. I had a friend, who got himself a PHD in neuropsychology, and he was offered a job working for an advertising company that basically uses people, with his skills, to help them determine better ways to manipulate the masses into buying products!

Through advertisements, films, music, games, internet etc... We are all programmed to be good little consumers. We are addicted to the endorphins released in our brains when we play computer games or get a thumbs up on social networking sites... We are drawn to the high fat, high sugar, high salt diets they feed us... We succumb to the beliefs, they install in us, that we are better, cooler, and sexier if we have the latest gadgets, designer clothes etc....

Its no longer as simple as supply and demand. We don’t control the market, the market controls us.
That not to say that we shouldn’t take personal responsibility for our own actions... And I agree when you say we need to look in the mirror. But there are many who are blinded into thinking that their lifestyles will have no impact on this world. There are others who simply don’t care (due to programming) and then there is a minority who do care and do live a little more consciously.

Environmentalism? All well and good but what difference can I make?,

Peace

reply to post by minor007 Thanks. I hope you understand that I do not think human CO2 will not add to the CO2 greenhouse, I agree it will. However I do not think that it could be as high as 2ppmv/year as the IPCC claim. Yet I also feel that climate scientists could have made this discovery a long time ago if they had taken notice of Henry’s law, which ordains a fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ of about 1:50 between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount dissolved in the oceans at equilibrium and at current ocean temperature. This implies that only about 2% of human CO2 emissions can stay in the atmosphere to be added to the CO2 greenhouse while the other 98% must be absorbed into the oceans. The arithmetic is straightforward and Henry’s law has been around since the end of the 19th century so I am a bit surprised that the climate science community seems to be largely unaware of it.

than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times.

That is a baseless assertion as far as I can see and it contradicts Henry’s law.

reply to post by Nathan-D


www.skepticalscience.com...

the link provides a different view

reply to post by minor007
I gave the article a quick glance and don't see how that article provides a different view to my argument. The article does not make an argument for the oceans capacity to absorb anthropogenic CO2 as far as I can make out, but explains why small changes in the oceans temperature will not emit massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (CO2's solubility is temperature-dependent). I disagree with the article's conclusion however. For every 1C temperature-change CO2's solubility changes by about 3% and if the entire oceans warmed that is enough to explain the current atmospheric CO2 increase, at least from my own calculations. The relationship between oceanic temperature and the observed atmospheric CO2 increase has been graphed by Prof Lance Endersbee. The correlation is about 0.9959, which is almost perfect. The current increase in atmospheric CO2 I think is more likely driven by oceanic temperature, since that permanently changes the partitioning ratio. I have seen Skeptical Science's and the IPCC's counterarguments. They ignore Henry's law on the idea that it has been superseded by the Revelle Factor, but the Revelle Factor seems plain ludicrous to me. It is the Revelle Factor that apparently allows human CO2 to significantly accumulate in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by minor007

Obviously you havent read this page. Man made Global warming is real just like your ignorance.

Yay more insults from people who do not know what they are talking about...

Originally posted by minor007
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases. Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in the Industrial Revolution.

Wow, first of all, do you actually think that the above responds to the questions I made earlier?... Because it doesn't...

That first. Second, you are stupid enugh to insult me knowing NOTHING about this topic and instead of using your own words to try to respond, without insulting, you take a half assed response from a known AGW believer website which has been caught lying?...

Now the response to the above claim.

First of all, the detailed history of CO2 is not well known for the whole of earth’s history, some periods are "believed" to be reasonably well understood. The detailed measurements of atmospheric CO2 only go back a few decades, which again means we do not have enough information to understand it well. However, there are a few things that we do know.

There are NATURAL reasons that can cause changes in the CO2 isotope ratios. In case you didn't know, humans and animals breathing also changes the 13CO2/12CO2 aka 13C/12C ratio, and right now there are more humans than ever before in the world...

Also, just in case anyone asks, which some of you might.

Changes in the Carbon isotope C14 on Earth's atmosphere and surface are produced naturally, and do not remain as constant as previously thought. Increases in water vapor levels in the atmosphere decreases the production of C14 from cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere. Changes in the Sun, and Solar System medium also affect the production of C14.

The assumption that a decrease of C14 in relation to the C12/C13 isotopes proves what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic is, once again, based on a flawed assumption which has been proven to be false.

You actually think you responded my inquiries with that excerpt from "skeptical science"?... Because you haven't...

Now, how about you TRY, on your own words, to respond to those inquiries I made earlier?...

Let's see who is actually ignorant on this topic shall we?...

How do you like them apples now?...

Oh, and since we are in the "we never had so much CO2, or changes so fast in CO2" territory, let's dispell this lie.

The following graph shows the correlation between CO2 and temperatures wordlwide for the last 600 million years.



And if we look at both temperature and CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years, we see that CO2 lags temperatures, sometimes the lag is 80 years, sometimes the lag is 800, and as I remember the longest lag has been 1,200 years.

The above graph shows that throughout Earth's history, there have only been two times, the Permian and Carboniferous, when CO2 levels were releatively close to today's. You can also see with this graph that animals and all green biomass have actually also existed with higher levels of CO2 content than now, yet we are being told that "today is special and the world will come to an end because of the CO2 level?"...


What the record shows us the temps that have occurred in East Asia.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a357061c7174.jpg[/atsimg]

In the above the year 2000 is the present. BTW 1998 temperatures were similar to 2005 temps, and temps since then haven't changed much.

The Sargasso Sea Temps.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97cec650ff2c.jpg[/atsimg]

In the above graph 0 is the present. Sometimes graphs have the present period to the right, at other times to the left. It is all a preference of the scientists/people/person who made the graph.

Alaska/north America.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/742a0ef22e8f.gif[/atsimg]

What the real temperatures in Europe say contrary to the Hockey Stick lie, and Mann, Jones et al lies..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b415b99d5396.gif[/atsimg]

As you can see the graphs above actually prove that the last two large Climate Changes we have had recently, tthe Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were in fact hotter than the current one, and atmospheric CO2 levels were between 270 ppm -290 ppm compared to today's 380 ppm - 390 ppm...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


showing your ignorance again are we?
Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

Its cosmic rays

Carbon dioxide higher in the past

co2 lags temperature

medival era was warmer

It hasnt warmed since 1998

Oceans are cooling

Originally posted by minor007

showing your ignorance again are we?
Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

You really are stupid aren't you?... the IPCC has been shown to be nothing but a scam...

LEARN TO READ... I hate to have to REPOST the following information AGAIN, but obviously the AGW RELIGIOUS FANATICS are too lazy to scroll back and READ...

REAL scientists even have had to leave the IPCC because of AGW being politicized...

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
.............

www.tsaugust.org...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

BTW skeptical science is a BLOG...

The only ignorance shonw here is YOURS...

AGAIN, TRY IN YOUR OWN WORDS to explain this science... Or are you that stupid that you don't understand what "IN YOUR OWN WORDS" means?...